Whether Insurance company is liable to pay compensation for death of owner of goods vehicle travelling in said vehicle ?

The Apex Court has discussed the position of law after
amendment effected to Motor Vehicles Act in 1994. The Apex Court
has laid down that due to the amendment, the owner of goods needs
to be given cover under the statutory policy. When the policy is sold
in respect of goods carrier, it needs to be presumed that policy
covers risk to owner of goods and his representative. The only
question which can be determined is whether deceased was present
in the vehicle as owner of goods or not. If the Tribunal decides this
question in favour of the claimants, then Insurance Company cannot

be exonerated from making payment of compensation. In view of
these circumstances, this Court holds that the Tribunal has
committed error in not holding the Insurance Company liable to
indemnify the owner. In view of the nature of policy and
circumstances of the case, this Court holds that the Insurance
company cannot be exonerated.
 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
 BENCH AT AURANGABAD
 FIRST APPEAL NO. 481 OF 2010
Nanasaheb s/o Trimbakrao Jarange

versus
 The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.

 CORAM : T. V. NALAWADE, J.
 DATED : 24th JULY , 2014
Citation; 2015(7) ALLMR 323

1. The appeal is filed against the judgment and award of claim
petition No. 47 of 2007, which was pending before the Claims
Tribunal, Beed. The Tribunal has exonerated the Insurance
Company and only on that point the decision is challenged by the
original respondent No.1, owner. Heard learned counsels for the
appellant, owner and Insurance Company. Learned counsel for
claimants was also heard.
2. The accident took place on 5.2.2007 at about 2.00 p.m. on
Padalsingi-Pathardi Road, within the jurisdiction of Chaklamba police
station. Deceased was present in the minidoor bearing No. MH-23-
4386. It is the case of the claimants that deceased Suresh was
present in the aforesaid vehicle with his goods, as owner of goods.
According to them, goods were gunny bags and wooden stumps

(balli). It is contended that due to rash and negligent driving of the
mini-door by its driver, respondent No.1, the vehicle turned turtle.
Suresh died on the spot in the accident. Claim was made by widow
aged about 29 years and four minor issues of deceased. In the
present proceeding, decision is challenged only on the finding of
exonerating the Insurance company from the liability. So it is not
necessary to discuss other contentions and other evidence.
3. Respondent No.1, owner of the vehicle filed written statement
and denied everything. Alternatively, owner contended that vehicle
was insured with respondent No.2 and so Insurance company is
liable to indemnify the owner. He also contended that deceased was
travelling with his goods in the tempo as owner of goods.
4. Insurance Company filed written statement and it contended
that claimants need to prove their contentions. It is contended that
deceased was travelling in the tempo as fair paid passenger and so
Insurance Company is not liable to pay anything. Other defence in
respect of absence of driving licence by the matador driver was also
taken.
5. The Tribunal had framed issues in respect of aforesaid
defence taken by the Insurance Company. The claimants gave

evidence and they placed reliance on the police papers. The
Insurance company examined its Officer Deepak. In his evidence
the Insurance policy was produced and proved as Exh.76.
6. The evidence given by the claimant, widow of the deceased is
as per the aforesaid contentions. The police papers are not seriously
disputed. Copy of certificate of registration of offending vehicle is
produced and it shows that it was registered as goods carrier. Copy
of F.I.R. shows that it is of no help with regard to the aforesaid case.
Copy of spot panchnama produced at Exh.60 shows that when
panchnama was drawn, bags of food grains were present in the
vehicle. At Exh.75 there is receipt to show that deceased had
purchased two bags of food grains which were found in the vehicle.
7. In Form A there is mention of vehicle and the insurance
particulars. Copy of policy at Exh.72 shows that a package policy
was purchased by owner of the goods carrier and premium in respect
of driver and cleaner was also paid. The evidence given by the
Officer of Insurance company shows that driver was holding a valid
and effective driving licence. He has only tried to show that
insurance company is not liable, as passenger in the vehicle was not
required to be covered under the policy.

8. The judgment delivered by the Tribunal shows that the Tribunal
tried to ascertain as to whether the deceased had paid charges. It is
observed that there was no record produced to show that charges
were paid for transporting the bags of wheat and so it was not
possible to infer that he was present with the goods, as owner of
goods.
9. There is substantive evidence of claimants and there is also
aforesaid record and particularly the spot panchnama. The crime
was registered for the offences punishable under sections 304-A,
279, 337, 338 of I.P.C. and not for any other sections, particularly
under Motor Vehicles Act. In view of this circumstances, inference
can easily be drawn that deceased was travelling as owner of goods,
with two bags of food grains in the vehicle.
10. Learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance on some
reported cases like;-
i) AIR 2001 SC 3363 (Ramesh Kumar vs. National Insurance
Company Ltd.)
ii) 2001 AIR SCW 3295 (New India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs.
Asha Rani) (Original)
iii) 2002 AIR SCW 5259 (New India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs.

Asha Rani) (Reference).
iv) AIR 2004 SC 1340 (National Insurance Co Ltd. vs. Baljit
Kaur)
v) AIR 2004 SC 4338 (National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs.
Chinnamma)
vi) AIR 2013 SC 1125 (Sanjeev Kumar Samrat vs. national
Insurance Co. Ltd.)
vii) 2009 (6) Mh.L.J. 141 (Bombay) (Balasaheb Salunkhe v.
Laxmibai Jadhav)
viii) 2012 94) Bom.C.R. 772 (National Insurance company Ltd.
vs. Ashwini Gaude)
11. The Apex Court has discussed the position of law after
amendment effected to Motor Vehicles Act in 1994. The Apex Court
has laid down that due to the amendment, the owner of goods needs
to be given cover under the statutory policy. When the policy is sold
in respect of goods carrier, it needs to be presumed that policy
covers risk to owner of goods and his representative. The only
question which can be determined is whether deceased was present
in the vehicle as owner of goods or not. If the Tribunal decides this
question in favour of the claimants, then Insurance Company cannot

be exonerated from making payment of compensation. In view of
these circumstances, this Court holds that the Tribunal has
committed error in not holding the Insurance Company liable to
indemnify the owner. In view of the nature of policy and
circumstances of the case, this Court holds that the Insurance
company cannot be exonerated. In the result the appeal is allowed
with no order as to costs.
12. The judgment and award of the Tribunal is corrected for
making the Insurance Company jointly and severally liable with the
owner to pay compensation. The other part of the decision of the
Tribunal is maintained. The award is to be prepared accordingly.
 ( T. V. NALAWADE, J.)